Examples of Conservative idealism success?

[Ten oz]

Every country in the world that we (USA) would generally consider first world are socialist in key markets if not outright. As I look around the world I struggle to identify any countries that succeed or have succeeded in the past using the limited government capitalism first models Conservatives here in the states advocate for. No country with a standard of living equal to or superior than the United States have lower taxation, less industrial regulation, or free market only solutions for healthcare, education, retirement, unemployment, housing, and etc.

What are the legitimate examples of the successful use of Conservative policies?

[overtone]

You are measuring by socialist standards. Your "standard of living" is measured over the whole of the society, rather than the deserving and contributing elites, for example.

 

This causes you to mistake the "conservative" (modern Fox News sense) agenda as one of freedom from arbitrary and appointed authority for all, and their capitalism as "free market", among other misconceptions.

 

Examples of successful States more or less adhering to Ted Cruz's ideology would be the French or English or Ottoman or Roman empires, the Japanese Shogunate, the Mongol dynasty in China, one of the longer lasting banana republics in South America, or in America one of the company towns such as were common in coal country, or a setup like the one in Hawaii after the capitalist deposition of the aboriginal aristocracy and before WWII.

[Ten oz]

@ overtone, I agree with your post but am trying to be less cynical. I am not a Republican/conservative. In an attempt to honestly consider their policies I am analyzing those policies as stated. The GOP would claim they are not imperialists. They insist less regulation and taxation increases liberty. I don't believe it but examples exist I would be interested in researching them. It doesn't seem any exist though.

[overtone]

I am not a Republican/conservative. In an attempt to honestly consider their policies I am analyzing those policies as stated.

The policies "as stated" are incoherent and dishonest in the first place. That is not cynical (there is no claim of inevitability, "everyone does it", only the naive think things could be otherwise, etc), but basic observation.

 

What you seem to be attempting is not an analysis but a rehabilitation of "their policies" - a rewriting of their verbiage into something with a similar vocabulary that makes sense and could potentially work as the governing policies of a modern industrial State. You are trying to derive poilicy from propaganda. You hope to find examples of countries successfully governed by something that can be described in the terms they use and according to the claims they can be adjusted to have made taken one buy one.

 

If diligent, you will end up with liberalism and a list of more or less modern industrial or early industrial States successfully governed (domestically) according to its precepts - some of which you are describing as "socialist" above, others (like the US itself in several phases, most recently in the fifty years beginning with Roosevelt's first term) you would not.

 

 

 

The GOP would claim they are not imperialists. They insist less regulation and taxation increases liberty. I don't believe it but examples exist

Examples of successful governance through moderation of imperialist inpulses and reduction of governmental burdens (taxes and regulations) on the poor and middle class abound. Canada, Switzerland, modern Japan, modern France, there's a long list.

 

If, one the other hand, you search for countries successfully governed according to the actual policies and programs of the GOP in the US, you will again find a long list - but characterized by a much different set of criteria for "success". Fascism works, on its own terms.

Edited July 1, 2014 by overtone

[swansont]

You are measuring by socialist standards. Your "standard of living" is measured over the whole of the society, rather than the deserving and contributing elites, for example.

 

Do we make allowances for the undeserving and noncontributing elites? What about the deserving and contributing non-elites? You don't describe how the measurement is to be done. I thought capitalism still included everyone.

[overtone]

 

 

You don't describe how the measurement is to be done

It doesn't matter how you do it, as long as you keep track of what you are doing. If you measure "success" in socialist terms, your successful countries will tend to be more socialistic. Measure on other terms, and you will find success in other systems - recall the classic right wing capitalist authoritarian's comparison of Switzerland and the Borgia's Italy, in defense of black market occupation Vienna (it's a movie script, but its lines are taken from life) :

 

Harry Lime: Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.

Note the inaccuracy common to all evaluations of others by rightwing capitalist authoritarians - Switzerland did not invent the cuckoo clock or enjoy 500 years of brotherly love, the Borgias did not produce the Renaissance - and the flagrancy of it: he's talking in the country that did invent the cuckoo clock, and had just been destroying its own Renaissance via persecution and murder and worse.

[swansont]

It doesn't matter how you do it, as long as you keep track of what you are doing. If you measure "success" in socialist terms, your successful countries will tend to be more socialistic. Measure on other terms, and you will find success in other systems - recall the classic right wing capitalist authoritarian's comparison of Switzerland and the Borgia's Italy, in defense of black market occupation Vienna (it's a movie script, but its lines are taken from life) :

 

Note the inaccuracy common to all evaluations of others by rightwing capitalist authoritarians - Switzerland did not invent the cuckoo clock or enjoy 500 years of brotherly love, the Borgias did not produce the Renaissance - and the flagrancy of it: he's talking in the country that did invent the cuckoo clock, and had just been destroying its own Renaissance via persecution and murder and worse.

 

 

How is equal weighting of all people in the statistics socialist? How does one group "live" more than another group, to justify heavier weighting in a measurement of their standard of living?

[Ten oz]

The policies "as stated" are incoherent and dishonest in the first place. That is not cynical (there is no claim of inevitability, "everyone does it", only the naive think things could be otherwise, etc), but basic observation.

 

What you seem to be attempting is not an analysis but a rehabilitation of "their policies" - a rewriting of their verbiage into something with a similar vocabulary that makes sense and could potentially work as the governing policies of a modern industrial State. You are trying to derive poilicy from propaganda. You hope to find examples of countries successfully governed by something that can be described in the terms they use and according to the claims they can be adjusted to have made taken one buy one.

 

If diligent, you will end up with liberalism and a list of more or less modern industrial or early industrial States successfully governed (domestically) according to its precepts - some of which you are describing as "socialist" above, others (like the US itself in several phases, most recently in the fifty years beginning with Roosevelt's first term) you would not.

 

 

 

 

Examples of successful governance through moderation of imperialist inpulses and reduction of governmental burdens (taxes and regulations) on the poor and middle class abound. Canada, Switzerland, modern Japan, modern France, there's a long list.

 

If, one the other hand, you search for countries successfully governed according to the actual policies and programs of the GOP in the US, you will again find a long list - but characterized by a much different set of criteria for "success". Fascism works, on its own terms.

So conservative rhetoric is merely propaganda. Their religious like admiration of wealth attainment serves zero public benefit? That they are imperialists who would gravitate toward fascism if their military industrial complex didn't benifit so greatly from patriotism and nation building?

[overtone]

 

 

So conservative rhetoric is merely propaganda.

Put "conservative" in quotes, and yes.

 

Their religious like admiration of wealth attainment serves zero public benefit?

My best guess is that it's a net loss, actually - less than zero.

 

That they are imperialists who would gravitate toward fascism if their military industrial complex didn't benifit so greatly from patriotism and nation building?

Uh, you think fascism or imperialism is somehow in conflict with patriotism and "nation building"?

 

 

How is equal weighting of all people in the statistics socialist?

Who said it was? I'm not even sure I know what you mean by "equal weighting"

 

 

 

How does one group "live" more than another group, to justify heavier weighting in a measurement of their standard of living?

Again, I'm not confidant I know what you are driving at -

 

Illustration: by the common US rightwing authoritarian capitalistic analysis, and you have seen this in public discourse involving "conservative" punditry I'm sure, the US has the finest medical care system in the world. And by their measures - quality of care available, degree of expertise and prevalence of advances in knowledge and capability, the flocking of patients to its havens, the universal imitation of its practices by an admiring world, and so forth, it does. When they measure the standard of living in the US, "average" access to the finest of medical care is a big boost.

 

By other standards, such as the ones in which all those European countries are found to be very successful, the US barely has a First World medical care system (34th, near the bottom, among the countries with First World medicine) and its enormous, crippling cost is a serious defect and a big debit to the standard of living here.

[swansont]

 

Who said it was? I'm not even sure I know what you mean by "equal weighting"

 

 

 

Again, I'm not confidant I know what you are driving at -

 

Illustration: by the common US rightwing authoritarian capitalistic analysis, and you have seen this in public discourse involving "conservative" punditry I'm sure, the US has the finest medical care system in the world. And by their measures - quality of care available, degree of expertise and prevalence of advances in knowledge and capability, the flocking of patients to its havens, the universal imitation of its practices by an admiring world, and so forth, it does. When they measure the standard of living in the US, "average" access to the finest of medical care is a big boost.

 

By other standards, such as the ones in which all those European countries are found to be very successful, the US barely has a First World medical care system (34th, near the bottom, among the countries with First World medicine) and its enormous, crippling cost is a serious defect and a big debit to the standard of living here.

 

 

You said it was socialist to be "measured over the whole of the society" rather than limiting it to the "deserving and contributing elites". You are giving some members of the society zero weight in the measurement. How is one person, one data point a socialist measure?

[Ophiolite]

I am perplexed. When I read overtone's posts I am in no doubt that he is a thoroughly right wing. When I explore his meaning I have no doubt he is appalled by the right wing. I'm not known for being a dumb ass, so my provisional conclusion is that overtone is writing incoherently.

[Ten oz]

Put "conservative" in quotes, and yes. My best guess is that it's a net loss, actually - less than zero. Uh, you think fascism or imperialism is somehow in conflict with patriotism and "nation building"?

Who said it was? I'm not even sure I know what you mean by "equal weighting"

Again, I'm not confidant I know what you are driving at -

 

Illustration: by the common US rightwing authoritarian capitalistic analysis, and you have seen this in public discourse involving "conservative" punditry I'm sure, the US has the finest medical care system in the world. And by their measures - quality of care available, degree of expertise and prevalence of advances in knowledge and capability, the flocking of patients to its havens, the universal imitation of its practices by an admiring world, and so forth, it does. When they measure the standard of living in the US, "average" access to the finest of medical care is a big boost.

 

By other standards, such as the ones in which all those European countries are found to be very successful, the US barely has a First World medical care system (34th, near the bottom, among the countries with First World medicine) and its enormous, crippling cost is a serious defect and a big debit to the standard of living here.

It seems as though you are under the impression I don't agree with your general view of the political right in the united states. I do. However this won't be much of a dicission if we all just agree from the start that the political right is worthless to the public good.

As a party Republicans claim to care about the public good. They advocate for liberty, safety, and a bunch of contradictory religious rights. I am hoping someone comes into this discussion with an example or two where those policies have helped common people.

[overtone]

 

 

You said it was socialist to be "measured over the whole of the society" rather than limiting it to the "deserving and contributing elites".

That is the pattern we see, and it appears to be ideologically grounded. That is how one comes to label those countries characterized as First World both successful and "socialist" (no great preponderance of the means of production is owned by the State in, say, Germany).

 

 

As a party Republicans claim to care about the public good. They advocate for liberty, safety, and a bunch of contradictory religious rights. I am hoping someone comes into this discussion with an example or two where those policies have helped common people.

The slide from "successful" (originally) to "helped common people" (now) should not be inadvertant. Meanwhile, I supplied a few above - Canada, the US from Roosevelt's first term until about 1980, liberal administrations of States in general, etc.

 

 

 

It seems as though you are under the impression I don't agree with your general view of the political right in the united states.

Not at all. My only disagreement was in insisting that the policies and stances of the US Republicans not be confused with their rhetoric - you are apparently not looking for examples of "success" from their policies (as I pointed out, that would require a different set of criteria for success), but from their rhetoric cleaned up and made coherent and taken as the policies of some State - Australia, say.

 

 

 

However this won't be much of a dicission if we all just agree from the start that the political right is worthless to the public good.

If you begin by identifying the Republican Party with "the political right", as interchangeable categorizations, discussion goes nowhere anyway.

 

 

 

When I read overtone's posts I am in no doubt that he is a thoroughly right wing. When I explore his meaning I have no doubt he is appalled by the right wing. I'm not known for being a dumb ass, so my provisional conclusion is that overtone is writing incoherently.

You might find more coherence by reading the posts as contributions to a discussion here, rather than clues to, or attempts to describe, my political orientation. That would at least unify the processes of "reading {the} posts" and "exploring the meaning" of them.

 

I'm left libertarian, as always on this forum - strongly libertarian and just a bit left of center (may not be statistically significant, more accurately "center") on those "score your stance" sites such as Political Compass.

[Essay]

Illustration: by the common US rightwing authoritarian capitalistic analysis, and you have seen this in public discourse involving "conservative" punditry I'm sure, the US has the finest medical care system in the world. And by their measures - quality of care available, degree of expertise and prevalence of advances in knowledge and capability, the flocking of patients to its havens, the universal imitation of its practices by an admiring world, and so forth, it does. When they measure the standard of living in the US, "average" access to the finest of medical care is a big boost.

 

By other standards, such as the ones in which all those European countries are found to be very successful, the US barely has a First World medical care system (34th, near the bottom, among the countries with First World medicine) and its enormous, crippling cost is a serious defect and a big debit to the standard of living here.

 

You're right! If you measure the top 10% of society (or even the top 50%) we are # 1; go USA. But if you measure things the "socialist" way (100% of the population) ...which would include the bottom 20%, and could even include the millions of illegal immigrants... then we barely meet those 1st World standards.

 

Finally the Libertarian perspective, which seems to be filled only with contradictions and short-term, provincial goals, begins to clarify itself; everything would be ideal, if it weren't for those systemic, pervasive, and/or chronic "social" problems. Perhaps you are confusing some notion of "socialist" ideals with social science-based policies?

 

~

Edited July 3, 2014 by Essay

[swansont]

That is the pattern we see, and it appears to be ideologically grounded. That is how one comes to label those countries characterized as First World both successful and "socialist" (no great preponderance of the means of production is owned by the State in, say, Germany).

 

All hand-waving here; you aren't addressing the issue. What is the pattern we see, and where is the ideological grounding?

 

Germany is one of the socialist states, and yet you say it does not have a great preponderance of the means of production owned by that state, which is to say it's not socialist.

 

All that matters here, IMO, is that we apply the same measurement method. e.g. how do we in the US measure our standard of living, and how does that compare to other countries.

[Ten oz]

That is the pattern we see, and it appears to be ideologically grounded. That is how one comes to label those countries characterized as First World both successful and "socialist" (no great preponderance of the means of production is owned by the State in, say, Germany).

The slide from "successful" (originally) to "helped common people" (now) should not be inadvertant. Meanwhile, I supplied a few above - Canada, the US from Roosevelt's first term until about 1980, liberal administrations of States in general, etc.

 

Not at all. My only disagreement was in insisting that the policies and stances of the US Republicans not be confused with their rhetoric - you are apparently not looking for examples of "success" from their policies (as I pointed out, that would require a different set of criteria for success), but from their rhetoric cleaned up and made coherent and taken as the policies of some State - Australia, say.

 

If you begin by identifying the Republican Party with "the political right", as interchangeable categorizations, discussion goes nowhere anyway.

 

You might find more coherence by reading the posts as contributions to a discussion here, rather than clues to, or attempts to describe, my political orientation. That would at least unify the processes of "reading {the} posts" and "exploring the meaning" of them.

 

I'm left libertarian, as always on this forum - strongly libertarian and just a bit left of center (may not be statistically significant, more accurately "center") on those "score your stance" sites such as Political Compass.

Rhetoric cleaned up? We have a two party system in this country. A right and a left. Democrats and Republicans. Some individuals are a bit more right or a bit less left but most politicians tow the party line. Each party has stated policy goals. Their own perspective on what is best for the country and it citizens. Success by both parties is generally defined by a strong middle class, low unemployment, opportunity for economic mobility, safety, education, etc, etc. Republicans don't claim to have a different messurement for success than Democrats so why must I create one? If Republicans say lowering corperate taxation and less government regulation will create growth in private markets, lead to more high paying jobs, and strengthen the middleclass than that is the measurement for success I expect them to be graded against by those they govern. The policies they advocate either work to do the things they claim or not. I am holding them to the standard they have given themselves.

 

I use Political Right, Republican, GOP, and Conservative interchangeably because for purposes of voting they are the same. Some members of the GOP may try to distance themselves from various hot button issues the extreme right loudly advocate but they all ultimately pull the level for the same politicians. When groups like the Tea Party and Libertarians stop competing in Republican primaries and start winning elections as legitimate 3rd parties I will change the way I reference them.

[overtone]

Apparently I cannot post my reply to the previous posts - repeated failure. Sorry about that. Maybe another time?

 

edit in: that worked, I'll try again:

 

nope. Odd.

In the interests of figuring out what is going on here, a retyped and shortened version:

 

 

 

We have a two party system in this country. A right and a left. Democrats and Republicans. Some individuals are a bit more right or a bit less left but most politicians tow the party line

The large and controlling majority of Democratic politicians are ideologically rightwing. Where is your "left"?

 

 

 

I use Political Right, Republican, GOP, and Conservative interchangeably because for purposes of voting they are the same.

But Republicans do not differentially occupy the political Right (they share a common rightwing ideology with the Democrats as a group), they are not conservative in general, and so forth. So you have rendered your vocabulary meaningless - that can work for voting, but it prevents analysis.

 

 

 

Success by both parties is generally defined by a strong middle class, low unemployment, opportunity for economic mobility, safety, education, etc, etc. Republicans don't claim to have a different messurement for success than Democrats so why must I create one?

If you want to evaluate "success" according to a policy you have extracted from a careful reworking of Republican propaganda and "claims", then you are answered above: Germany, the US from 1933 or so until 1983 or so, Canada, Australia, etc. But Republicans do have actual policies, absent from their public rhetoric but clearly visible in their actions and efforts, and measures of success visible in what they label "success" - if you are asking about examples of "successful" countries governed by such policies and measured accordingly, the examples would be different. I contrasted health care "success", as an example of the differences - the US is very successful in that area, according to actual Republican criteria. It is an overpriced and ineffective mess, according to the criteria of your "socialist" countries.

 

You would be dumping the propaganda and "claims", and along with them the criteria of middle class prosperity, education, safety (for the poor), opportunity for economic mobility, low unemployment, and the like.

Edited July 6, 2014 by overtone

[DimaMazin]

 

All hand-waving here; you aren't addressing the issue. What is the pattern we see, and where is the ideological grounding?

 

Germany is one of the socialist states, and yet you say it does not have a great preponderance of the means of production owned by that state, which is to say it's not socialist.

 

All that matters here, IMO, is that we apply the same measurement method. e.g. how do we in the US measure our standard of living, and how does that compare to other countries.

US protect Germany from russian chaos otherwise the level of living will be low.

Edited July 7, 2014 by DimaMazin

[CharonY]

US protect Germany from russian chaos otherwise the level of living will be low.

 

Yeah, I need a citation for that.

[Ten oz]

With the Republican primaries kicking into full throttle this week with debates I thought this thread could by re-addressed. The candidates will tout various conservative proposals to limit government regulation, reduce taxation, scale back enviromental protection, ban abortion, block immigration, arm more individuals, and push free market (for profit) solutions for: education, healthcare, law enforcement, and etc. So asked in the OP what are the examples of that approach working for the better of a population?

[MigL]

You need a citation for the fact that, if not for the US, all of Germany would have been like East Germany ?

Any book on the Cold War, CharonY.

 

Capitalism and the attainment of wealth, is a driver for economic advancement.

Not all drivers for economic advancement are necessarily good.

Some, like war, can be bad, but lead to growth spurts in economy and well being of people ( or should I say survivors ).

 

I'm certainly not ashamed to say I've voted Conservative in the past, and probably will do so again if their policies warrant it ( we have a federal election coming up also ), but as Overtone has stated Canadian Conservatives are not American Republicans ( or even Democrats ).

[Ten oz]

You need a citation for the fact that, if not for the US, all of Germany would have been like East Germany ?

Any book on the Cold War, CharonY.

 

Capitalism and the attainment of wealth, is a driver for economic advancement.

Not all drivers for economic advancement are necessarily good.

Some, like war, can be bad, but lead to growth spurts in economy and well being of people ( or should I say survivors ).

 

I'm certainly not ashamed to say I've voted Conservative in the past, and probably will do so again if their policies warrant it ( we have a federal election coming up also ), but as Overtone has stated Canadian Conservatives are not American Republicans ( or even Democrats ).

Capitalism is not evil. I don't think any major political brand in the westernized world advocates against capitalism. It is the taxation, regulation, and management of key markets that divide the political parties. This thread is asking for examples of success when using the model advocated be Conservatves. We are all well aware of examples of various amount of socialism being successful. Where you live in Canada there is socialist medicine. What are the examples where low taxation, major roll backs on regulations, and purely profit driven solutions for education, medicine, pensions, and etc have successfully helped the majority of a countries residents?

[MigL]

Well low taxation by itself is not a bad thing, it is only when taken in the context of not being able to pay for the services that a society deems essential or when the government has to borrow to pay for these essential services, that low taxation becomes counterproductive.

Any other reason is simply re-distribution of wealth, and that is basically taking away any incentive for people to personally improve or better themselves.

A government ( or better yet, society ) should provide equal opportunities for people, and a certain standard of life for all its members.

Beyond that, it has no business trying to make all people equal in wealth; That is the total opposite of capitalism.

[CharonY]

You need a citation for the fact that, if not for the US, all of Germany would have been like East Germany ?

Any book on the Cold War, CharonY.

 

 

 

Considering that he said Russia (instead of Soviet Union) and the topic I was assuming we are talking contemporary concepts of conservatism. As you know, there have been large historic shifts on what could be considered conservative ideals.

Edited August 4, 2015 by CharonY

[Ten oz]

You need a citation for the fact that, if not for the US, all of Germany would have been like East Germany ?

Any book on the Cold War, CharonY.

 

Capitalism and the attainment of wealth, is a driver for economic advancement.

Not all drivers for economic advancement are necessarily good.

Some, like war, can be bad, but lead to growth spurts in economy and well being of people ( or should I say survivors ).

 

I'm certainly not ashamed to say I've voted Conservative in the past, and probably will do so again if their policies warrant it ( we have a federal election coming up also ), but as Overtone has stated Canadian Conservatives are not American Republicans ( or even Democrats ).

What are the examples of success? For example Democrats advocate making pre-school and 2yr colleges free. Successful examples of that positively impacting a countries population exist throughout Western Europe. What are the advocated policy positions from Conservatives that have successful examples?